Back to the Future

"When are we going to ever use this?" the naive tenth grade boy asks his American History teacher. The well-informed instructor, knowing the importance that the strand of historical events holds for our present reality replies "The first Tuesday of every November starting at age 18 until they throw dirt on your coffin."

I have been wanting to shed some light on history and why it is so important for me and a couple of good friends (one is the best platonic friend I - or anyone else for that matter - has ever had) supplied me the inspiration I needed to get the ball rolling. So I'll tell you exactly why I care about past leaders as much as I do present ones.

Because without Alexander Hamilton there would have never been a Barack Obama.

That sounds pretty far-fetched but it is a fact. The current struggle that we watch between conservatives and liberals today started about 15 minutes after the ink of the Declaration of Independence dried. Two schools of political thought sprung up immediately and grabbed each other by the throat. One (that understood the rules of grammar) began statements with "The united States are..." while their counterparts claimed "The United States is...". The difference does not look that substantial at first but, grammar aside, the two could not be more dissimilar. I'll be more specific.

The Anti-federalists would tell you that the united States are a collection of free, sovereign and independent states (nations) that have joined themselves together loosely for common trade and defense but that mind their own business in intrastate matters.

The Federalists would tell you that The United States is a powerful union divided into separate subordinate jurisdictions that have very little autonomy and no right to challenge the authority of the union itself.

And who said a little grammar isn't important on Election Day?

And then these two groups set claws into each other while brave men faced off against Redcoats sent by King George who said "The United States is going to do what I say or I'll burn it to the ground."

So much for "The King's English".

Well, we know of the Declaration and we know of the Constitution. Well, the Declaration was approved in 1776 and the Constitution was ratified in 1788. That leaves the fledgling nation in a state of complete anarchy for almost 12 years. Or maybe not. The Second Continental Congress called for the drafting of Articles of Confederation in June of 1776. The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781 but served as the de facto system of governance as of  November 1777. Thirteen individual nations banded together loosely enough to maintain their own identity but tightly enough to stand together against common threats. Sort of like a family of brothers that like to be their own men but would never let a bully waylay one of their own.

Back to my Hamilton claim. Hamilton was one of the Federalists. He was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. He, as well as the other Federalists, believed that the Articles of Confederation lacked something. They somehow were not strong enough. They were strong enough to enable 13 rag tag nations to upset the most powerful nation of the era - perhaps the greatest empire to ever grace the face of the Earth - and force the massive empire to surrender. (to put this in today's jargon, it would be similar to a single outlet mall putting the entire Wal-Mart corporation out of business.) But they weren't strong enough to rule those same 13 nations.

The government needed power. And in order to do that the Articles had to go.

So the Federalists fought for a strong Constitution and a centralized Federal government that would have authority and could offer stability. The Anti-federalists fought back with writings and debates of their own and when the Federalists took the upper hand and central government began to loom as unavoidable, the brilliant Antis came up with ways to assure State sovereignty - an Electoral College to elect the Executive and having the Senate be elected by the state legislatures. Many provisions were included to ensure that States would plot their own laws and decide what was best for themselves. As the fight for the States continued, the Federalists got their central government but the Antis forced it into the smallest central government possible and then drafted 10 Amendments, a Bill of Rights, to cripple it.

And then came more amendments.

At first they were benign, even beneficial. "President and Vice President run together one the same ticket", "You can't own another human being" and "black people can vote".

And then they took a turn for the weird.  "A grown man is not allowed to make, buy, posses or drink a beer" and "We have the right to steal money from your paycheck before you even see it". One of these was to be repealed and the other not - they reversed that. Now if you have enough money after taxes you can buy yourself a taxed beer.

And then things really deteriorated. (I'm skipping some steps but will revisit them in future articles). The Feds started taxing everything. Gasoline, durable goods, inventory, booze, utility bills (You have to pay a tax to pay your bill? Really?), literally everything.  The Feds tax enough to make George III say, "Hey, wait just a minute! This is ridiculous!". And then came "czars" that answer to no one and don't exist in the Constitution. Then there were agencies like the EPA that can disregard the 4th Amendment. There were entitlement programs where people get money to not work - paid for by people that have to work to be taxed to support the entitlements.

And then states decide to vote on  laws to enforce existing  Federal immigration policies, to allow or disallow homosexuals to marry, to allow people to posses and use small amounts of marijuana (all things falling under Amendment X)- and the Feds stepped in every time - if not to reverse, to threaten to reverse.

Now Hamilton has succeeded. Instead of "the united States are" it is becoming more along the lines of "The Union of American Socialist Republics is". The states have no rights. The have no autonomy, no identity, no ability to govern themselves.

And so arises a Messiah that can use the immense powers of the Federal government to pay our medical bills, appease foreign despots, bring peace to the world, even change global weather patterns.All because of a strong Federal government and he'll be able to do more if he can pass "sweeping new powers" on a regular basis, appoint more czars, raise more taxes, spend more money, borrow more money from people who'd prefer we were dead. Makes perfect sense to me.

This is Hamilton's dream - except for the part where he is the king. It came through many historic figures to certain degrees: Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, two Johnsons, two Roosevelts, Wilson, Carter, Clinton, two Bushes and now an Obama. They've been helped by a slew of governors, congressmen, senators, justices, cronies, lobyists, etc

But that's another story for another day.

The Boise Question

Yeah, I have to go there. My love for college football keeps drawing me to the story about the team from Idaho that just wins. Yeah, their turf is putrid - even more than regular fake grass. Yes they have a conference schedule that is made up of smaller, less significant programs that are seen by so many as "weaker" than other conferences. And Boise continues to win.

Some of the criticism is warranted. That isn't the toughest conference around. Some of the criticism can't be helped. There isn't exactly a line of big-time programs out there waiting to face off against the Broncos. And the teams that do show up - take Virginia Tech and Oregon State for examples this season - typically leave disappointed.

Regardless, the criticism is consistent - "They don't belong in the BCS"

Really? Let's look at this argument.

Boise has had two opportunities to participate in the BCS and they have a 2-0 record to show for it. In the 2007 Fiesta Bowl they defeated The Oklahoma Sooners 43-42. Then just last season they defeated TCU in the Fiesta Bowl 17-10.

And then there are the teams that "belong". The teams that sports writers and analysts never criticize when BCS polls are published or when selections are made for teams to participate in the BCS.

Oklahoma has lost their last five appearances in the BCS - including a loss to Boise, a 55-19 loss to Southern California and a 48-28 loss to West Virginia. And yet it never crosses any one's mind that the Sooners don't belong in the BCS.

Ohio State posted back-to-back pummelings at the hand of SEC opponents in their last two appearances in the BCS Championship game. The Buckeyes have posted a 2-3 record in their last 5 BCS appearances and the two victories were over Oregon and Notre Dame - both of which will be addressed shortly.

Oregon is 1-1 in BCS action and haven't won a BCS game since the 2002 Fiesta Bowl win over Colorado. They play in the Pac-10 with powerhouses like Washington State and Cal. They lost last season's Rose Bowl to Ohio State. See above - enough said.

Notre Dame. Really? The team that has not won a National title since 1988 and has not threatened to win one since 1993. Despite this recent lack of football success, Notre Dame is allowed to appeal to the BCS as if it were an entire conference all to itself. So this one school has the same bargaining power as the accumulated 12 schools of the SEC - winners of the last 4 (meaning every one ever held) BCS Title Games and 5 of the last 7 National Championships. This is without considering the fact that the 2004 Auburn Tigers were robbed if the trophy. And yet Notre Dame plays cupcakes all year every year. No one questions their presence in the BCS. For the record, Notre Dame's BCS record is 0-3 - including a 41-14 spanking by LSU and a 41-9 embarrassment by Oregon State.

So back to Boise. All of this craziness, all of this severe mediocrity, all these big schools have had their shot - and have been shot down time and time again. Boise has had two chances. They've won both times. That is more than I can say for the two teams that currently are standing between them and a chance for the Crystal Football. Why not give the Broncos a chance, if they win out, and if they lose 41-14 we allow them to play in the Rose Bowl in perpetuity.

What do we have to lose?

Tradition - not always a bad thing.

Tradition. The word gives me conflicting feelings. There are so many positives and yet so many negatives. For years, I despised the mention of the word - partially because I hate the way people get bogged down in it and refuse to change and partially because I refused to realize how important it was to my own life.

But I recently had an experience that has shown me the importance of tradition and it has taken a few weeks for the lesson to sink in completely.

I spent four years working with the football program at Jacksonville State University (yes, the ones on SportsCenter after beating Ole Miss). I was there under legendary coach Bill Burgess. Coach Burgess used a hard-hitting, old school approach to football and life. He built a tradition that we were all proud to be a part of. It was an experience that was instrumental in my life. Even now, I use lessons I learned on the game and practice fields of that era.

Without getting into gory details of backstabbing and conniving politicians, most of whom are now dead and basically forgotten, Coach Burgess, the coach with the highest winning percentage in school history and the program's only national championship - won on the field and not in a poll - was fired and ran off of campus. It was shameful and disgraceful.

Years passed and the men known as "Burgess Boys" - all the assistant coaches, players, equipment managers and trainers that served under Coach Burgess began to organize and lobby for an honor for our great coach.

In the meantime our team went on a roller coaster ride. There was the incompetent successor of our coach, who managed to lose the respect of every person in the athletic department in a matter of months. And then there was the hiring of a man who had been out of coaching for years - a man that began to restore the program and try to connect the players to the heritage of the team. While the team had been successful in recent years there just seemed to be something missing.

So when the University launched a massive stadium renovation and expansion project the Burgess Boys knew just what needed to be done. Our coach's named needed to be on that facility somewhere. So many of my former colleagues took to the campaign. After months of publicity and pressure from Burgess Boys and every sportswriter that knew of the effort, the university finally agreed to cease the the attempts to wipe Burgess from the memory of the program. They agreed to name the field after him.

In a fitting ceremony, this season's home opener was a dedication of the new stadium and a renaming of the field. Our coach was honored at mid-field, the band played, the fans cheered, Burgess Boys came out in droves to encourage the players and a video screen played highlights from the Burgess Era and declared "This house was built by champions, for champions". The connection to heritage - our championship football tradition - was made. No longer would kids ask about the strange trophies in the lobby and wonder where they came from. Tradition was finally paroled and would once again be part of the program. That was what the team was missing all these years - the knowledge of where they came from. The confidence of knowing who they were when they wore "Gamecocks" on their jersey.

Since that evening I have thought about the implications of what happened - not only for the team but for me and my family. As I raise my sons, it is important for me to teach them who they are, where they came from and why they are important. The spiritual, cultural, familial, and educational significance of tradition is now evident to me even more than ever before. It is vital to their success.

And so I can add to the lessons provided to me by Jax State football. Over ten years after leaving the field house for the last time I have learned the importance of filtering out the difference between tradition and monotony, between heritage and humdrum.